Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2024

Stuyvesant v. Swaine

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-03598
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stuyvesant v. Swain, Judge Engelmayer dismissed Stuyvesant’s claims, denied his petition in full, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Curtis Van Stuyvesant’s claims against the listed defendants were dismissed, his petition was denied in full, and his request to appeal without paying filing fees was denied. The case was closed.

What happened

In United States ex rel. Curtis Van Stuyvesant v. Laura Taylor Swain and others, the court dismissed Curtis Van Stuyvesant’s claims against the listed defendants and denied his petition in full.

The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The case was closed.

Judge Engelmayer is identified as the judge in the supplied case information. The judgment says the reasons for the rulings appear in a June 20, 2024 order, which is not included in the provided text.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Stuyvesant v. Swaine · No. 1:24-cv-03598
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
June 21, 2024

Rulings

The judgment states that the court dismissed Curtis Van Stuyvesant’s claims against Laura Taylor Swain, Jennifer Rochon, Lewis A. Kaplan, Colleen McMahon, Loretta A. Preska, Naomi Reice Buchwald, Debra Freeman, Debra Ann Livingston, Ruby Krajick, and Catherine O’Hagan Wolf. It also states that the court denied Van Stuyvesant’s petition in full.

Appeal and Case Status

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment states that the case was closed.

Limits of the Provided Text

The judgment says that the reasons for these rulings were stated in the court’s June 20, 2024 order. That order is not included here, so the provided text does not explain the legal basis for dismissing the claims or denying the petition, or whether the court reached the underlying issues.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.